Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
US Tax Dollars Fund Terrorists
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
On March 8, 2016, Taylor Force, a 28-year-old West Point graduate and veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, was visiting Israel with members of his graduate class from Vanderbilt University when a Palestinian terrorist attacked civilians in Jaffa with a knife. Force was killed, and 10 others, including a pregnant woman, were wounded. The next day, the terrorist who killed Force, Bashar Masalha, was praised as a “hero and martyr” by the Fatah party (which is overseen by Mahmoud Abbas). He was given a hero’s funeral and thousands attended.
The Palestinian Authority passed a law in 2004, Law Number 14, Articles 1 and 2 that provides Masalha’s family with a pension for life, amounting to three times the average yearly salary in the West Bank.
The Palestinian government makes absolutely no attempt to hide its rewards for terrorism. In the Amended Palestinian Prisoners Law 19 of 2013, the payments were actually enhanced for a terrorist who commits a violent act and is jailed. Under this law, the longer the sentence (i.e., the greater the violence), the higher the salary that a terrorist receives. Article 4 offers free tuition to the children of those jailed. In Article 6, there is even a clothing allowance and monthly stipend linked to the cost-of-living index. Health insurance is included in Article 4, section 12. Article 5 provides the ultimate bonus: a lifetime pension for a prison term of five years (or only two years in the case of a female terrorist).
The PA allocates $315 million, nearly 8 percent of its budget, to pay terrorists in prison and the families of the “martyrs.”
In February, Senator Lindsey Graham reintroduced the Taylor Force Act that would end the sending of funds to the Palestinian Authority for its support of terror. If passed, the US Secretary of State would be required to certify that the PA is taking credible steps to stop acts of violence against the US and Israeli citizens; the PA would publicly condemn violence and assist in bringing the perpetrators to justice; and it would stop paying terrorists and their families who commit these acts. The bill is sponsored by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Roy Blunt (R-MO), and Tom Cotton (R-AR); Congressmen Doug Lamborn (R-CO) and Lee Zeldin (R-NY); and cosponsored by Senators Tim Scott (R-SC), Marco Rubio (R-FL), John Boozman (R-AR), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Richard Burr (R-NC), and John Thune (R-SD).
But the Taylor Force Act may not be as helpful as it appears. The use of US tax dollars to fund terrorism is only a portion of the PA’s economic corruption. As Caroline Glick says in her book, The One State Solution:
Foreign donor governments, who pay for more than a third of the Palestinian Authority’s operating budget, have repeatedly requested that the Palestinian Authority take serious steps to remedy the situation. But it has not done so. As the continued repression of freedom of the press since Arafat’s death makes clear, the Palestinian Authority doesn’t investigate allegations of corruption and authoritarianism to redress them—rather, it hides them by silencing its critics.
In addition, some of the funds we are sending to the PA are actually helping Israel to fight terrorism:
The reason that nobody has yet brought up eliminating American security assistance to the PA – although it is important to note that the preliminary budget for FY 2017 cuts it from $70 million to $35 million – is that the most overlooked fact of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the past decade has been the remarkable record of the PASF [Palestinian Authority Security Forces] in helping keep Israelis safe. Ask any Israeli security official, and they will tell you that coordination with the PASF is one of the primary reasons that terrorist attacks on Israelis now consist of lone-wolf stabbings and shootings rather than mass suicide bombings, and why there are rockets from Gaza but zero from the West Bank. Despite the rhetoric of Israeli politicians about the PA being barely a step removed from terrorism, the PA has become Israel’s most important security partner on the ground.
So if the Taylor Force Act is implemented, others will likely continue to support the Palestinian Authority; those funds could continue to support rewarding terrorists. Even if the PA complies with the Act’s demands, it will be difficult to track whether they continue to honor its requirements. At least we will be taking steps to make the support of terrorists and their families more difficult.
Still there does appear to be hope elsewhere. In December, the UK temporarily suspended funding to the PA because the Brits claim, correctly, that the money winds up in the hands of terrorists. They have established specific criteria for how funding should be distributed, and to whom. Shortly after his inauguration, President Trump held up a last-minute cash giveaway of $221 million to the Palestinians that Barack Obama authorized just hours before he left office. It is unclear whether the funds have been released, or released with restrictions.
So there are three primary questions:
- Do you think the Taylor Force Act will be effective if passed?
- Should we be supporting the Palestinian Authority at all?
- Should we find a way to provide funds that holds the PA accountable for using the funds appropriately?
As for the proximity/terror connection: I skimmed the paper you linked to, and it seems play around with a lot of variables in ways that could ensure that the conclusion they desire is reached.
There are also indications that proximity does not increase terror, but in fact, decreases it. The Muslim Arabs who live in Israel and who are full citizens of Israel are much less likely to become involved in terror than those who live in the West Bank. There may be a number of reasons for that, including the possibility that the Israeli security forces have greater leeway within Israel and thus are likely to catch planned terror attacks early, before they are enacted.
But it is also true that some Arab citizens of Israel are patriotic and support the country. A few volunteer to serve in the IDF. A few even call themselves Zionists. In other words, proximity to Israel and to Jews has tended to lessen animosity, not increase it.
A fascinating example of this is the town of Barta’a. It is a town that is entirely Muslim Arab in population. It straddles the 1949 armistice line (the Green Line). So half the town is in the West Bank, and half is in Israel. From 1949 up until 1967, while Jordan controlled the West Bank, the division was hard—people couldn’t cross over from one side of the town to the other. After 1967, the Israelis put a crossing point in and so people could visit family and friends on the other side.
What I find interesting is that the people of the town found they had grown apart in attitudes. Those on the West Bank side of the town were much more militant; those on the Israeli side of the town were more accommodating. Partly, I suspect, that is because those on the Israeli side met and may have worked with Jewish Israelis. Partly, I suspect also, is that they were aware that being part of Israel gave them the advantage of access to the Israeli health care system, which appears to be excellent, and access to the Israeli economy.
So I think this is a case where familiarity does not breed contempt; rather, the opposite.
I think one of the saddest things in the whole conflict is the “anti-normalization” movement,. Here is how a description of it has been worded:
Cultural events and projects involving Palestinians and/or Arabs and Israelis that promote “balance” between the “two sides” in presenting their respective narratives, as if on par, or are otherwise based on the false premise that the colonizers and the colonized, the oppressors and the oppressed, are equally responsible for the “conflict,” are intentionally deceptive, intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible. Such events and projects, often seeking to encourage dialogue or “reconciliation between the two sides” without addressing the requirements of justice, promote the normalization of oppression and injustice.
In practice, this means that it is forbidden to do such things as hold a friendly soccer match, put on a joint musical performance, or even just drink a cup of coffee together.
I think that underlying the fear of “normalization” is the suspicion that if Israelis and Palestinians did get to know one another, militancy might decrease. So those who wish to keep the conflict going do everything they can to prevent any type of friendly contact.
These points are similar to those of Caroline Glick’s. Thanks so much, TooShy.
There’s evidence that Palestinians are reluctant to join with the Israelis on just about anything for fear that they will be punished or even killed by the PA. Thanks, again.
Sure. The salient difference is citizenship, and therefore rights and freedoms.
These include things like freedom of movement, a meaningful franchise (a representative government that can be voted out and isn’t propped up because it’s useful to an occupying force), at least hypothetical (if constrained) equality before the law and some (albeit limited) security of private property.
What evidence?
Still a nonsense argument. It could be applied to anyone in a position of power to attack motives for any action.
This whole string of comments started when you said the PA paying terrorist families was supported by the Palestinians. I said that makes them guilty. You turn that around and suggest a vote for Netenyahu makes Israelis guilty. That’s wicked equivocation. The Palestinians seek the death of Israelis while the Israelis seek to make their homes safe. There is no equivalency.
Matt – Palestinians see settlements as taking away their homes (and any chance of a two state solution, so much so that most of them no longer believe that it is even possible), and Netanyahu as basically facilitating that because of conviction or electoral calculations. Given that, how do you think they should see Israelis who vote for Netanyahu? Complicit? Innocent? You tell me.
Wrt conduct and motivation:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/28/netanyahu-criticised-in-damning-report-on-2014-gaza-war
@Zafar, this whole dialogue about settlements reinforces my own thinking that a two-state solution is unworkable. The Middle East and certainly many places around the world are trapped by their respective histories. At some point you have to ask yourself “How do we get out of this mess?” The best answer I can come up with a one-state solution, democratically elected, under the rule of law. Which of the two “states” current available best fits this outcome? Israel. Are there legitimate grievances? Of course — no place is without them. Are there perfect solutions? No. The current restrictions on Palestinian ingress into Egypt and Jordan (should they not want to be citizens of Israel) are mostly due to the history of violence and destabilizing practices. The elimination of the PA and the resultant more (not completely) peaceful state represents an opportunity for Palestinians to shake off how they are perceived by Jordan and Egypt. To argue for a two state solution when the PA will not recognize Israel is to argue for unending conflict unless the Jews are turned out of the Levant. If that is your goal state it loud and proud.
Zafar, I have been wondering how to respond. I can see how the settlements would irk you, might seem to you an unwanted imposition.
But I don’t think the settlement project, in itself, is a cause for the conflict, or even a major factor at the moment.
There weren’t any settlements prior to 1967, and there wasn’t peace then.
At the moment a majority of the Palestinians (about two-thirds) want a future state of Palestine that stretches from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean. That means they see not only the Israel towns and villages in the West Bank as settlements, but they also see the nation of Israel itself as one big, illegitimate settlement. To them, Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank is only one step of the process, and the final goal is the elimination of Israel itself. That is not a recipe for peace.
You, obviously, see the issue differently.
So I am going to try a different tack:
I think that if Israel pulled out of the West Bank now, it would be disastrous for Palestinians.
The whole region is on fire. The conflict in Syria could so easily spill over into the West Bank. Among the Palestinians of the West Bank there are supporter of Fatah, there are supporters of Hamas, there are supporters of Islamic Jihad, there are supporters of ISIS. Even Iran is getting into the act, and they have a new group, called al-Sabireen, which has a presence in the West Bank.
If Israel were not there, the fighting between Palestinian factions in the West Bank would be horrific. If the Palestinians were lucky, one group would gain ascendancy quickly. If they were unlucky, the fighting could turn into a Syrian-style bloodbath.
Intra-Palestinian conflict doesn’t interest the mainstream media, and so we don’t hear about it much. Pro-Palestinian NGOs will tend to downplay or ignore it because it doesn’t advance the “cause”. But the divisions are deep and deadly and potentially very dangerous.
And it is not just the divisions between Palestinians. If Israel withdrew from the West Bank, I think it would become a magnet for foreign Islamic fighters. ISIS attracted adherents from all around the world to come to Raqqa. The West Bank would similarly attract militants from many countries.
To admit that the Palestinians are so dependent on the Israelis must be hurtful. But if someone really cares about the well-being of ordinary Palestinians, I think it is essential to admit the truth. At the moment, the West Bank is more or less peaceful. That is a blessing, and not one to be discarded lightly.
I hate the Palestinian Authority. It is corrupt and evil and the human rights abuses are serious. The way the PA treats its own citizens is vile. But I fear the alternative is much, much worse. And, at the moment, the Palestinian Authority can’t survive without Israel.
Caroline Glick states Palestinians are reluctant to speak well of Israel because they fear reprisal from the PA. Think about that a second. Who would report in the news–that Palestinians like living in Israel? Who would the Palestinians officially report that to? I have a hard time imagining that Palestinians who fear the PA if they say nice things about Israel would let others know. Glick reports that these comments come up when surveys are taken; they are told to surveyors informally and anonymously to avoid endangering themselves. Do you think the PA would be happy to have Palestinians saying nice things about Israel? Do you think they would hesitate to hurt anyone who would?
None of that matters if they’re in favor of attacking Israel. Once you’ve called for a people’s extinction it doesn’t matter how offensive you find their political decisions. They have no grounds for complaint.
“Caroline says” is evidence? I think not.
Your point are arguable, but: evidence?
Here are three stories.
In this one, some Palestinians had coffee with some Israeli settlers, and discussed how to resolve mutual problems. The PA arrested them:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/10/palestinian-authority-finally-releases-palestinians-arrested-for-visiting-jewish-sukkah/
In this one, a Palestinian university professor decided to teach his students about the Holocaust. He actually led a trip to Auschwitz. He lost his job, his car was torched and the library threw out the books he had donated to them:
http://www.israellycool.com/2015/03/12/the-persecution-of-mohammed-continues/
Here is an article about Baha Nabata, who was murdered. I think I read somewhere that he didn’t even particularly like Israelis, but he worked with them to try and improve conditions in Shuafat refugee camp. So he was labelled a collaborator and killed:
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Palestinian-activist-feared-for-life-before-being-gunned-down-in-east-Jlem-refugee-camp-453110
So yes, I do think that many Palestinians are frightened.
It is very, very sad. I think the Palestinians are caught up in a nightmare world, and I think a large part of the nightmare is of their own devising. Or better put, of their leaders. I don’t know how they can find their way out.
Thanks, again, TooShy. @zafar, re Caroline Glick, she’s the one who spoke to people who conducted the surveys and was told by them of the Palestinian’s reluctance to praise the Israelis. I’m sorry if that falls short for you.
@zafar , I know this is off-topic, but I was wondering what you think of the conflict in Kashmir.
It is one I know very little about.
@Rodin – I think a single state with equal rights for everybody would be the most admirable solution. Jmho.
I will say that Palestinians should not have to leave their country and go to Egypt or Jordan – but I don’t think Israelis should have to leave either. At this point it’s not entirely the country of either’s imagination.
It did but TooShy’s links were spot on.
We (India) have made a real mess of it – and for no good reason.
This kind of thing means that even when we win (and we have the force of arms) we lose:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/video-shows-man-tied-to-army-jeep-as-human-shield-against-kashmir-protesters/story-9GXGfsRVre9FMSliAtIi5J.html
Its shaming.
Sorry if I got testy, Zafar. You know I admire your effort to considerate and thoughtful on these kinds of topics. Actually, I think we agree here.